I know it's amazing for motion graphics, and I'm close to choosing it over Maya for its user-friendliness (my 3D experience so far is limited to a couple of months with Blender, whose interface I love to hate).

The only thing that concerns me is that I've heard Maya has better animation tools (and modeling and rigging as well, perhaps?)

As a beginner, do you think I am likely to find learning modeling, rigging and animation frustrating with C4D?

Quote:As a beginner, do you think I am likely to find learning modeling, rigging and animation frustrating with C4D?

Short answer - No, if anything Maya is the one that beginners will find frustrating.

Slightly longer answer - Cinema has a gentler learning curve, built in modular rigging tools that are very user friendly and a solid animation feature set. Maya has deeper implementation of animation tools, faster timeline and a completely nodal architecture which gives deeper power for TDs. For high end character work it is more powerful but until you are working on larger projects you won't really notice that much difference.

As for modeling, with regular poly modeling really there's practically nothing in it, both apps have strengths and weaknesses in different tools (neither are great poly modelers to be honest but they both get the job done). Maya has nurbs modeling and better import from CAD apps in some ways, C4D has basic sculpting built in, sort of like a light version of Mudbox.

Grab the demo and watch some tutorials, try stuff out. These ones for example by yours truly cover a lot of the newer rigging/animation stuff in R13 and newer. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...eature=view_all The last one in the list covers Cinemas auto rigger.

Originally Posted by StevenJCG:I know it's amazing for motion graphics, and I'm close to choosing it over Maya for its user-friendliness (my 3D experience so far is limited to a couple of months with Blender, whose interface I love to hate).

The only thing that concerns me is that I've heard Maya has better animation tools (and modeling and rigging as well, perhaps?)

As a beginner, do you think I am likely to find learning modeling, rigging and animation frustrating with C4D?

The tools between the apps are more or less the same. CINEMA will be easier to pick up. I would recommend learning CINEMA then Maya vs the other way around. I think Some of what Maya tries to teach you will hinder your ability to understand or grasp concepts with other apps(ie over-complicate things). I think CINEMA will get you going faster. But the tools are more or less the same in both apps.

Check out the free tutorials on Cineversity and elsewhere. Get familiar with the tools, and then you can look at any tutorial and copy their concepts regardless of the program you are using.

__________________www.bretbays.com
"We do not - not wag our genitals at one another to make a point!"

Originally Posted by xfon5168:The tools between the apps are more or less the same. CINEMA will be easier to pick up. I would recommend learning CINEMA then Maya vs the other way around. I think Some of what Maya tries to teach you will hinder your ability to understand or grasp concepts with other apps(ie over-complicate things). I think CINEMA will get you going faster. But the tools are more or less the same in both apps.

Check out the free tutorials on Cineversity and elsewhere. Get familiar with the tools, and then you can look at any tutorial and copy their concepts regardless of the program you are using.

If you want to be an animator then you need to spend the majority of your time studying animation, not software. If you look at an animation forum like the 11 Second Club and watch the monthly entries you can see that well over half of them are from kids who have gotten a cracked copy of Maya, loaded up a free character rig from the net and then figured out the basic technical stuff of posing, setting keyframes, loading in audio to sync to and rendering out previews. Anyone who can operate an Xbox or a smartphone can get that far. What they lack though is any concept of how to make good animation, ie they have no understanding of the classic animation principles like timing, spacing, arcs, staging, appeal, overlap, weight, etc etc! So the results are all kinds of ugly.

It's similar with motion graphics, most people can learn how to use the mograph module with a little training, but the ones who create compelling results with it are those who understand art principles like design, typography, colour theory etc.

Brad Bird compared CG animation to Sampling in music, in that it's easier for anyone to load up a rig and pose it and get some kind of result that looks like 'animation'. But being able to use those tools effectively still takes artistic knowledge, not computer/software skills.

Another reason why this is so important is that if you do have a career as an animator you will likely move from studio to studio and will encounter different software packages as you do so (the likes of Dreamworks and Pixar for example use their own custom software instead of any of the other major packages). So again, knowing how to animate will get you much further than being able to use any particular piece of software.

Originally Posted by Horganovski:One other point that seems to often get glossed over on CG forums :

If you want to be an animator then you need to spend the majority of your time studying animation, not software. If you look at an animation forum like the 11 Second Club and watch the monthly entries you can see that well over half of them are from kids who have gotten a cracked copy of Maya, loaded up a free character rig from the net and then figured out the basic technical stuff of posing, setting keyframes, loading in audio to sync to and rendering out previews. Anyone who can operate an Xbox or a smartphone can get that far. What they lack though is any concept of how to make good animation, ie they have no understanding of the classic animation principles like timing, spacing, arcs, staging, appeal, overlap, weight, etc etc! So the results are all kinds of ugly.

It's similar with motion graphics, most people can learn how to use the mograph module with a little training, but the ones who create compelling results with it are those who understand art principles like design, typography, colour theory etc.

Brad Bird compared CG animation to Sampling in music, in that it's easier for anyone to load up a rig and pose it and get some kind of result that looks like 'animation'. But being able to use those tools effectively still takes artistic knowledge, not computer/software skills.

Another reason why this is so important is that if you do have a career as an animator you will likely move from studio to studio and will encounter different software packages as you do so (the likes of Dreamworks and Pixar for example use their own custom software instead of any of the other major packages). So again, knowing how to animate will get you much further than being able to use any particular piece of software.

/endRant!

Cheers,
Brian

Hear hear. I agree with everything here. Fundamentally to be a good animator you need to be good at seeing things in great detail, and to be an actor of sorts. That's why you see so many good animators looking at themselves in the mirror or videoing themselves. It's all about reference. No software can teach you that.

Originally Posted by Horganovski:One other point that seems to often get glossed over on CG forums :

If you want to be an animator then you need to spend the majority of your time studying animation, not software. If you look at an animation forum like the 11 Second Club and watch the monthly entries you can see that well over half of them are from kids who have gotten a cracked copy of Maya, loaded up a free character rig from the net and then figured out the basic technical stuff of posing, setting keyframes, loading in audio to sync to and rendering out previews. Anyone who can operate an Xbox or a smartphone can get that far. What they lack though is any concept of how to make good animation, ie they have no understanding of the classic animation principles like timing, spacing, arcs, staging, appeal, overlap, weight, etc etc! So the results are all kinds of ugly.

It's similar with motion graphics, most people can learn how to use the mograph module with a little training, but the ones who create compelling results with it are those who understand art principles like design, typography, colour theory etc.

Brad Bird compared CG animation to Sampling in music, in that it's easier for anyone to load up a rig and pose it and get some kind of result that looks like 'animation'. But being able to use those tools effectively still takes artistic knowledge, not computer/software skills.

Another reason why this is so important is that if you do have a career as an animator you will likely move from studio to studio and will encounter different software packages as you do so (the likes of Dreamworks and Pixar for example use their own custom software instead of any of the other major packages). So again, knowing how to animate will get you much further than being able to use any particular piece of software.

/endRant!

Cheers,
Brian

This is superb advice, thank you! It's something I have definitely considered as I get started, and I've seen The Animator's Survival Kit by Richard Williams recommended as a good primer/overview of the topic.

Thanks to everyone for their input! I literally discovered 3D by downloading Blender and giving it a try--I fell in love with the general concept there and then. There is a tendency to focus too much on the medium and tools, though, so I'll keep an eye on that.

Originally Posted by StevenJCG: There is a tendency to focus too much on the medium and tools, though, so I'll keep an eye on that.

This was something I struggled with for some time. I even sold my cinema 4d license at one point and switched to Maya, but I kept coming back. C4d just "clicks" with my brain, and I find that the more I learn in C4d, the more I can understand other programs.

Originally Posted by Venkman:This was something I struggled with for some time. I even sold my cinema 4d license at one point and switched to Maya, but I kept coming back. C4d just "clicks" with my brain, and I find that the more I learn in C4d, the more I can understand other programs.

From what I've read so far, C4D will "click" with me too! Fingers crossed.

please explain exactly why maya character tools are better than c4d. I use both apps and I like to know what others think and say about this. I like c4d better and always quit on maya after awhile and say I hate using maya. LOL I get stuff done quickly in c4d, i have fun doing it and i really like making the UI the way I like it, including font sizes which helps my old eyes read it better. I strain to read things in the maya UI.

Originally Posted by PhoenixCG:Wait until you have a ton of time and then set up a free trial account with Lynda.com. Rob Garrott will teach you all the basics in about 10 hours.

I would also agree with C4D being the way to go. Maya always felt like work to me, yes their character tools are better but C4D is rapidly growing so who knows where we'll be in September.

Originally Posted by oliveoyle:please explain exactly why maya character tools are better than c4d. I use both apps and I like to know what others think and say about this. I like c4d better and always quit on maya after awhile and say I hate using maya. LOL I get stuff done quickly in c4d, i have fun doing it

Well I use both apps here and I feel I could give a laundry list of features in Maya that are deeper and more flexible for character animation. (Note I'm specifically talking about animation, not necessarily rigging which people often lump into the same category). What would be the point though? If you have fun using C4D and find it works for your needs then why worry about Maya? In my opinion there's only a good justification to look at other apps if the one you are using is not letting you complete the job you need it to do. If it is, and you enjoy using it, then it's the right application for you.

The only reason I started working with Maya was that a couple of years ago I had a job where we were producing animation content for online delivery and we found bugs in Cinemas FBX exporter (since fixed or gotten around via CD FBX) that we couldn't get around. So we switched the entire pipeline (mid project - ouch!) to Maya, I spent a couple of weeks learning the ropes and found that I actually enjoyed working in it. For some reason it just clicked with me (especially MEL which is now almost my second language after English LOL).

Since then I've made the license cost pay for itself by using it on client jobs, and I regularly go back and forth between Maya and Cinema depending on the client or even the needs of a particular shot sometimes (Alembic now makes this pretty painless, I regularly mix elements from the two apps into the final result). So for me it's not a case of either/or, I really enjoy having access to both and the bigger tool set that that provides me.

I have done the same kind of jobs (I specialize in character work) in both apps and I'd like to think I can achieve the same result in either. I may have personal preferences as to which workflow I prefer but that ultimately does not affect the final result. I hope my clients would agree with me that I can provide quality character work no matter what application I'm using.

Follow Us On:

The CGSociety

The CGSociety is the most respected and accessible global organization for creative digital artists. The CGS supports artists at every level by offering a range of services to connect, inform, educate and promote digital artists worldwide. More about us on TheArtSociety.com